Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 168

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deception in Research on the Placebo Effect

Open access
Miller, Franklin G, Wendler, David, Swartzman, Leora C·2005·PLoS Medicine

Abstract

A common feature of research investigating the placebo effect is deception of research participants about the nature of the research. Miller and colleagues examine the ethical issues surrounding such deception.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020262

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 168

Metadata

Authors
Miller, F. G., Wendler, D., & Swartzman, L. C.
Venue
PLoS Medicine
Published
2005-09-06
Volume
2
Issue
9
Pages
e262
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W1967534107
Cited by
168
References
2
FWCI
2.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deception in Research on the Placebo Effect. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020262
The paper
Miller, F. G., Wendler, D., & Swartzman, L. C. (2005). Deception in Research on the Placebo Effect. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020262

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.